Minerals Engineering 43–44 (2013) 29–35

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Minerals Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mineng

Dynamic modeling and simulation of cone crushing circuits

Pekka Itävuo a,⇑, Matti Vilkko a, Antti Jaatinen b, Keijo Viilo c
a
Department of Automation Science and Engineering, Tampere University of Technology, P.O. Box 692, FIN-33101 Tampere, Finland
b
Minerals Processing Systems, Metso Automation, P.O. Box 237, FIN-33101 Tampere, Finland
c
Crushing and Screening Equipment, Metso Minerals, P.O. Box 306, FIN-33101 Tampere, Finland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: As a common practice, steady-state models are used for simulation and process dimensioning of crushing
Available online 7 September 2012 circuits. However, intended circuit performance is rarely achieved due to constantly fluctuating feed-
material size and characteristics. This gap between theoretical and realized performance has the potential
Keywords: for process control.
Crushing Little scientific attention has been paid to the analytic control system design of crushing circuits. The
Screening current lack of suitable dynamic process models for the task is direct evidence of this. Therefore, it is not
Modeling
surprising that currently existing control applications are biased towards heuristic, model-free, non-ana-
Process control
lytic approaches.
This paper presents an effective way to produce dynamic process models from established steady-state
models. The resulting simulator makes it possible to develop control methods that fully utilize the capac-
ity potential of crushers and facilitates efforts for energy-efficient operation of crushing circuits.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction thorough description of dynamic process models for control sys-

tem design. Section 4 uses the presented models to give a dynamic
Crushing plays an important role in the aggregates and mining simulation example.
industries by reducing the particle size of granular solids, such as
rocks and ores. Before the desired product size is reached, the feed
2. State-of-the-art review
material undergoes 2–4 crushing stages that form a circuit.
Each crushing circuit consists of a unique combination of unit
This section presents a short review about dynamic modeling of
operations for crushing, screening, conveying, feeding, and storing.
crushing circuit unit operations. Borison and Syding (1976) empir-
Contrary to the steady-state modeling that primarily focuses on
ically concluded that material flow dynamics in feeders and crush-
crushing and screening, every unit operation in the circuit contrib-
ers can be approximated using first-order lag transfer functions.
utes to the dynamic presentation.
Whiten (1984) later discussed dynamic expansion of static models
Dynamic modeling of crushing circuits for analytic control sys-
by adding small time delays to crusher and screen outputs.
tem design has not received much attention in scientific literature.
Moreover, he proposed that conveyors can be modeled as simple
Traditionally, interest has been limited to the narrow range of min-
time delays, and ore bins, surprisingly, as a LIFO-queue with
ing applications to control crusher load by manipulating the feed
variable time delay.
rate. Controlling crusher product size and shape by using manipu-
Herbst and Oblad (1985) presented the first dynamic simulation
lated variables (that is, the closed side setting (CSS) or eccentric
model specifically made for control system design that incorpo-
speed (ES)), has not been addressed from the dynamic modeling
rated disturbances such as feed-material size, rate, and properties.
perspective. However, crushing control has major possibilities for
Herbst and Oblad linked feed-hopper material level with crusher
efficiency and profitability.
flow rate, power, and product size distribution, using a static rela-
The purpose of this paper is to: provide models for analytic con-
tionship. Moreover, they approximated that a step change in feed
trol system design of cone crushing circuits, and serve as a starting
rate to the hopper causes first-order lag to the hopper level.
point for future dynamic modeling endeavors.
Sbarbaro et al. (2005) empirically modeled feeder-conveyor
Section 2 gives a state-of-the-art review about dynamic
combinations with first-order with time delay (FOTD) transfer
modeling of crushing circuit unit operations. Section 3 presents a
functions. The model structure is in line with Borison and Syding
(1976). In another paper, Sbarbaro (2005) discussed feed-hopper
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 50 3444401. material balance and the relationship between material mass and
E-mail address: pekka.itavuo@tut.fi (P. Itävuo). volume. Moreover, he approximated the dynamics between

0892-6875/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2012.07.019
30 P. Itävuo et al. / Minerals Engineering 43–44 (2013) 29–35
feed-material mass flow and crusher power with first-order lag
transfer function. He also proposes a modeling procedure for vari-
able-speed conveyors.
Most recently, Johansson (2009) used distributed parameter
models to give a very precise dynamic presentation of the cone
crusher. However, this model structure would suit better for finite
element method (FEM) simulations than for control system design.
Moreover, there are some simulation software packages (e.g.,
SysCAD, IDEAS and ProSim) that have dynamic properties, but
the structure of the dynamics is not known to the authors.
The common missing element in all the previous work is that
none of the presented models includes dynamics of crusher actua-
tors (CSS and ES). This is a serious error from the control system
design point of view. Moreover, several important disturbance
types (such as moisture) are not included in the models, even
though disturbance rejection is one of most important tasks for
the control systems.
3. Modeling
This section presents the general principles for dynamic model-
ing of cone crushing circuit unit operations. A detailed description
of dynamic models for the cone crusher, screen, conveyor, and fee-
der is given.
3.1. Modeling approach
Modeling in this work is mostly carried out using Hammerstein
and Wiener-type systems that combine static nonlinearities with
linear dynamics. The advantage of such a hybrid structure is that
modeling can be separated into individual tasks. This makes it par-
ticularly suitable for situations where the static process behavior is
known in advance. In other words, it allows for using static perfor-
mance models made for other purposes (Janczak, 2005). The struc-
ture of a Hammerstein and a Wiener system is given in Fig. 1.
3.1.1. Framework for control system design
The modeling for control system design is particularly inter-
ested in two specific relationships: the input/output relationship
and the disturbance/output relationship. These two relationships
form a framework and modeling domain for the control system de-
sign. This approach is illustrated in Fig. 2. From the process control
point of view, the variable u refers to control inputs, the variable y
refers to process outputs and the variable w refers to disturbance
inputs (that is, manipulated variables (MVs), controlled variables
(CVs), and disturbance variables (DVs), respectively). In general,
the control system will use MVs in order to achieve desired CV val-
ues in the presence of measured and unmeasured DVs. In this
sense, the material fed to the crushing process is, in fact, a distur-
bance. Consequently, the process will never be in a steady state
without a control system.
3.1.2. Dynamic model types
In this work, the linear dynamics are primarily modeled using
first-order transfer functions given by the following equations:
(a)
Fig. 1. A Hammerstein system (a) and a Wiener system (b).
Time delay:
G1 ðsÞ ¼ ess ; ð1Þ
Integrator:
K
G2 ðsÞ ¼ ; ð2Þ
s
First-order lag:
K
G3 ðsÞ ¼ ; ð3Þ
Ts þ 1
First-order with time delay (FOTD):
K
G4 ðsÞ ¼ ess ; ð4Þ
Ts þ 1
Integrating first-order with time delay (FOTDI):
K
G5 ðsÞ ¼ ess ; ð5Þ
sðTs þ 1Þ
where s is the Laplace operator, K is the steady-state gain, s is the
apparent time delay, and T is the apparent time constant. The aver-
age residence time is given by Tar = s + T (Åström and Hägglund,
2006). The parameter K in this work is mostly equal to unity (where
not mentioned) because K is actually a linearized counterpart of the
static nonlinearity, and thus already modeled in the corresponding
steady-state model.
3.2. Cone crusher
The cone crusher has two manipulated variables (MVs) that can
be arbitrarily changed during operation: closed side setting (CSS)
and eccentric speed (ES). The CSS is defined as the shortest distance
between crushing liners. Other parameters affecting crusher oper-
ation are the stroke length and the crushing cavity geometry. Both
of these can be changed, but not while operating, and are thus con-
stants in this work. Moreover, the cone crusher is subject to a num-
ber of DVs (Evertsson, 2000; Ruuskanen, 2006; Bearman and
Briggs, 1998). These variables are listed in Fig. 3. In addition, the
process equipment experiences time-variant behavior due to wear
of crushing liners (Bearman and Briggs, 1998), which is not consid-
ered in this work.
A generic simulation model for a control system design of a
cone crusher is presented in Fig. 3. The model consists of eight indi-
vidual submodels for actuators, material and feed-hopper flows,
crusher dynamics, and crusher performance models divided to
product size, capacity, and power models. Flow and performance
models are static and nonlinear, directly from Ruuskanen (2006).
The other submodels are dynamic and mostly developed within
this work. A detailed description of the submodels is presented
next.
3.2.1. Actuator models
Actuator models are special because the model is actually a con-
trol loop similar to Fig. 2. The control input to the system is there-
fore a setpoint for the corresponding control loop.
(b)
 P. Itävuo et al. / Minerals Engineering 43–44 (2013) 29–35
Setpoint (yr) Error (e)
Controller
Fig. 2. Generic model structure for control system design.
Fig. 3. Dynamic model of a cone crusher.
Use of a frequency converter is the obvious way to control
crusher ES. In this case, the control loop dynamics are usually so
fast that there is no actual need to take them into account in the
input/output presentation. The important thing about frequency
converters is that they come with parameterizable ramps for accel-
eration and deceleration. Consequently, the ES follows those ramps
very closely. Thus, the input/output relationship becomes an inte-
grator, as in Eq. (2), with K equal to the acceleration/deceleration
rate of frequency converter. The actual input to the system is either
1 or 1 in a transient situation, or zero in a steady state. Note that
this model is nonlinear.
The cone crusher CSS is controlled by means of a hydraulic pis-
ton. The actual process model depends on the hydraulic system
configuration. Known configurations are at least a two-way, load-
compensated proportional valve, a two-way pump, and a one-
way pump with an on/off valve. The dynamic model for the
hydraulic piston with proportional valve is given by Eq. (5) (Dorf
and Bishop, 2001), where the apparent time constant T and time
delay s usually range between 50 and 200 ms. Due to fast dynam-
ics, by assuming frictionless conditions, a transfer function can be
approximated with an integrator, as in Eq. (2). The parameter K is
31
Modeling domain:
Disturbances (w)
Inputs (u) Outputs (y)
Process
the ratio between the hydraulic valve input and the rate of CSS
change in both cases. The final closed-loop transfer function can
be then calculated using the following equation:
GC
Gcl ðsÞ ¼ ; ð6Þ
1 þ GC
where G and C are the process and controller transfer functions,
respectively.
3.2.2. Flow model
In this work, a flow model is used to provide crusher- and cav-
ity-specific parameters for performance model inputs. Flow-model
parameters, as described in Ruuskanen (2006), can be calculated as
a function of CSS and ES for the whole operating range (Evertsson,
2000), and then fitted with ANFIS neuro-fuzzy networks (Jang,
1993). This approach is computationally efficient, as all calcula-
tion-intensive stages can be performed beforehand. Fig. 4 presents
examples of the fitted flow-model parameters for the Metso
GP300M, a tertiary cone crusher with 32-mm stroke. Examples
are (starting from left) effective stroke length at the outlet (eSTR1),
number of crushing zones (CZs), closed-side volume of the last
32 P. Itävuo et al. / Minerals Engineering 43–44 (2013) 29–35

8
12

11 7.5

10
eSTR1

CZ
9
6.5
8
6
7

400
25
250 25
350
20 300
300 20
350
CSS 15 ES ES
400 250 15 CSS

4
x 10

1.4

1.2
Vc1

0.8

0.6

25
250
20 300
350
15
CSS 400 ES

Fig. 4. Examples of ANFIS fitted flow model parameters for Metso GP300M tertiary cone crusher.

crushing zone (Vc1). Other flow-model parameters are volume ra-

Table 1
tio of first and last crushing zone, average effective stroke length in Equation numbers (#) and corresponding parameter values for dynamic manipulation
the cavity, stroke length at the outlet and cavity angle. of performance models’ input parameters.

Input Capacity Power Product size

DV Eq. (1); s = Td Eq. (4); T,s = 0.5Td Eq. (1); s = Td
3.2.3. Feed hopper model MV Eq. (3); T = 0.5Td Eq. (3); T = 0.5Td Eq. (3); T = 0.5Td
The mass balance in the feed hopper is given by the following
equation:

3.2.4. Crusher-dynamics model

dm
¼ Q in  Q out ;
dt
where m is the mass of material accumulated in the feed hopper,
and Qin and Qout are the mass flows of material entering and exiting
the feed hopper. The mass flow Qout is controlled by the crusher. The
relationship between material mass and volume can be calculated
with m = Vq, where V is the material volume and q is the material
bulk density. The formula for bulk density estimation is described
in Ruuskanen (2006) and in Evertsson (2000). It is also possible to
calculate the material level h in the feed hopper, which is a nonlin-
ear function of V and depends on crusher and feed-hopper geometry
(Sbarbaro, 2005). The material flow in the feed hopper is assumed
to be non-mixing and follows a plug flow pattern. The justification
is based on material-flow patterns in circular metal silos with
conical outlets; according to Rotter, the following criteria must be
met for the plug flow pattern: adequately steep slope, large enough
outlet opening, and low wall friction (Rotter, 2001). The first two
are obviously met simply because of the physical design. Moreover,
the material used in a feed hopper is supposed to promote the
smooth material flow, which supports the reasoning.
ð7Þ The crusher-dynamics model manipulates the input parameters
of crusher performance models in a way that resembles the dy-
namic effect of material flow to the cone crusher model outputs.
This parameter manipulation is performed separately for each in-
put/output combination by using the transfer functions given in
Table 1. The average material residence time inside the choke–
fed crushing chamber Td can be calculated using the following
equation:
ncz
Td ¼  60; ð8Þ
x
where ncz is the total number of crushing zones in the cavity, and x
is the crusher eccentric speed (rpm). The parameter values in Table
1 are based on the assumption that the crusher is choke–fed and
half of the crushing zones are effective. The number of effective
crushing zones affects the crusher output transients during the
MV change. It is also possible to analytically solve the amount of
effective crushing zones, as in Evertsson (2000) and treat the
parameters accordingly. This research furthermore assumes that
the lowest crushing zone (choke zone) controls the crusher
 P. Itävuo et al. / Minerals Engineering 43–44 (2013) 29–35 33

capacity. Thus, all material above the choke zone exhibits plug flow
behavior under choke–fed conditions (Evertsson, 2000). If the choke
zone is higher in the cavity, the plug flow behavior only occurs
above the choke zone. Below that, and in a non-choke fed situation,
the smaller particles are able to move also during compressions and
have therefore shorter residence time than the larger ones. As a re-
sult, only the particles larger than CSS are subject to breakage and
obtaining the accurate residence time distribution becomes diffi-
cult. In this work, we use a rough estimate for non-choke fed case
and substitute the transfer functions in the first row of Table 1 with
Eq. (3), where T = 0.5Td. In a general case, using Eq. (4), where s is
the dead-time above choke zone and T is the average residence time
in the remaining crushing zones, should provide satisfactory results.
be iterated in a way that the amount of impurity in Eq. (10) matches
with the calculated screening efficiency J. The cumulative particle-
size distribution of impurity transported to the oversize stream
can be finally constructed by substituting the upper limit of the
integral in Eq. (10) with particle sizes 0. . .a, and by dividing the
resulting vector with I.
The final retained Qr and passed Qp material-mass flows can be
easily calculated from the following equations:
Q r ¼ Q  Q u  J; ð12Þ
Q p ¼ Q u  J; ð13Þ
where Q is the feed-material mass flow. The following screen decks
can be calculated in a similar manner.

3.2.5. Performance models

3.3.2. Dynamic expansion
Performance models in this work are log-transformed linear
The resulting steady-state model is then expanded into a dy-
regression models that calculate the interaction between crusher
namic Hammerstein system with Eq. (1) for the material retained
and feed material. Models are of form y = eln(X)b, where X is a non-
from the screen decks, and with Eq. (3) for the undersize material
linear function of MVs, DVs and flow-model outputs, and b is the
of the lowest deck. This is done by assuming non-mixing plug flow
vector of fitted coefficients. There is a separate performance model
behavior and identical material-transport velocity for each deck.
for product size distribution, crusher capacity, and crusher power
The apparent time delay s is given by the ratio of screen length l
calculation. Ruuskanen (2006) goes into greater detail on
and material-transport velocity v. This can either be determined
descriptions, model coefficients, and validation results for crusher
empirically or analytically calculated (e.g., Soldinger, 2002). For
performance models and their precise usage in conjunction with
the stream of undersize particles, a time constant T relative to
flow-model calculation.
the average residence time 0.5s is used.
3.3. Screen
3.4. Conveyor and feeder
This subsection presents a dynamic screen model. Modeling is
carried out using Hammerstein-type system, i.e., static nonlinear- A belt conveyor with constant speed can be modeled as a pure
ity is followed by linear dynamics. delay with Eq. (1) (Whiten, 1984). The apparent time delay s can be
determined as a ratio between conveyor length l and speed v. A
3.3.1. Steady-state model model for a conveyor with variable speed drive is a bit more com-
The steady-state part is modeled using a modification of a clas- plex. The transfer function has to be partitioned into a series of
sic VSMA screen-sizing formula used in a Metso Bruno flowsheet FIFO buffers with respect to the conveyor length in order to main-
simulator (Viilo, 2011). The accuracy of the Bruno-model has been tain the material balance during transients (Sbarbaro, 2005). In this
observed to be similar or slightly better than, e.g., a classic Karra- case, the dynamics of transients should also be considered.
model. Vibrating feeders can be modeled as a first-order lag-transfer
The factor for screening efficiency CJ is first calculated using the function given by Eq. (3) (Sbarbaro et al., 2005; Borison and Syding,
following equation: 1976). The value of the apparent time constant T is usually empir-
ically determined.
Qu
CJ ¼ Q8 ; ð9Þ
As  Q s  i¼1 C i 4. Simulation
where Qu is the mass flow of undersize particles in the feed, As is the
effective screening area, and Qs is the basic screen capacity. The cor- This section presents a dynamic simulation example of the Met-
relation factors C1. . .4 are the oversize, half-size, deck location, and so LT300GPB tertiary mobile cone crushing plant. The simulated
wet-screening factors. C5. . .8 are the material density, effective plant layout is given in Fig. 5. The plant consists of a Metso Nord-
screen-surface open area, screen-opening shape, and the moisture berg GP300 tertiary cone crusher (medium chamber, 32-mm
factors. Corresponding correlation factor values are available in Vii- stroke length, 330-rpm ES and 16-mm CSS), a Metso B2100T
lo (2011). The resulting factor CJ is then scaled into value J, which two-deck screen (length 6.25 m, width 1.6 m, material speed
represents the efficiency of undersize recovery (that is, the amount
of passed undersize material divided by the amount of undersize
material in the feed). By substituting the parameter J into the
following equation:
Z a  2 !n
ax
I¼ 1 du ðxÞ dx; ð10Þ
0 aþw

where
 lnð2Þ
n¼   2  ; I ¼ 1  J; ð11Þ
ln 1  ax 50
aþw

x is the particle size, a is the screen aperture, w is the screen wire

diameter, and du is the particle-size distribution density function
of undersize particles, the value of an unknown parameter x50 can Fig. 5. Metso LT300GPB mobile cone crushing plant.
34 P. Itävuo et al. / Minerals Engineering 43–44 (2013) 29–35

Material flow rate

600
Conveyor 1
400

t/h
Feed Conveyor 2
200
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Mean particle size

14

12
mm

Screen product 8/16 Crusher product

10

8
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Screen performance
100
Deck 1 efficiency
90
%

Deck 2 efficiency
80

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Feed hopper material volume

1
m3

0.5

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
time [s]

Fig. 6. Simulation results for Metso LT300GPB.

circuits. It also presented the generic method for dynamic expan-

Table 2
Apparent dead times for LT300GPB unit operations.
Crusher Feed hopper Screen Conveyors 1–4
Dead time (s) 1.5 0–30 20.8 11.3, 6, 5.3, 5.3
0.3 m/s, screen decks: #20-mm, #9-mm) and Conveyors 1–4.
Conveyors are run at a constant speed of 1.5 m/s, and are 17 m,
9 m, 8 m, and 8 m in length, respectively. Feed material is granite:
feed size 0/60, LA-value 18.5, density 2.7, moisture 0.5%, and flak-
iness index 22. The material is fed to Conveyor 1 using a feeder
with a constant rate of 395 t/h and 3 s time constant. Two step
changes are performed during the simulation. Feed moisture
changes to 3% at 300 s and CSS setpoint changes to 19 mm at 450 s.
The simulation results are presented in Fig. 6. It takes approxi-
mately six full circulations (250 s) until the process stabilizes dur-
ing start-up. There will be a notable increase to this number with
increased plant complexity. The moisture disturbance causes
rather intense changes at different parts of the process due to de-
creases in crusher throughput and product size. Moreover, the
most significant plant dynamics appear to be the result of the
material transport in the conveyors, screen, and feed hopper;
material only takes 1.5 s to pass the crusher. The material transport
times in unit operations are summarized in Table 2. According to
the simulation, CSS seems powerful and rapid enough to control
material size. The observation of screen separation efficiency re-
veals the strong dependency between feed rate and efficiency.
5. Conclusions
This paper has presented dynamic simulation models and
modeling techniques for control system design of cone crushing
sion of existing steady-state models.
The previous work has shown that current operating modes are
not suitable for particle-size distribution control of crushing cir-
cuits, and therefore unable to provide optimal operation with re-
spect to time (Itävuo et al., 2011). With help from the dynamic
simulation model, it is possible to develop control methods that
fully utilize the crusher’s capacity potential. Moreover, it is possi-
ble to develop control schemes that provide optimal energy effi-
ciency of crushing circuits.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the Finnish Funding Agency for
Technology and Innovation (Tekes). Metso Minerals (Tampere)
provided the necessary data and facilities for the process
experiments.
References
Åström, K., Hägglund, T., 2006. Advanced PID Control. ISA-The Instrumentation,
Systems, and Automation Society.
Bearman, R.A., Briggs, C.A., 1998. The active use of crushers to control product
requirements. Minerals Engineering 11 (9), 849–859.
Borison, U., Syding, R., 1976. Self-tuning control of an ore crusher. Automatica 12
(1), 1–7.
Dorf, R., Bishop, R.H., 2001. Modern Control Systems, ninth ed. Prentice Hall.
Evertsson, C.M., 2000. Cone Crusher Performance. Ph.D thesis, Chalmers University
of Technology.
Herbst, J., Oblad, A., 1985. Modern control theory applied to crushing. Part 1:
Development of a dynamic model for a cone crusher and optimal estimation of
crusher operating variables. In: IFAC Automation for Mineral Resource
Development, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 9–11 July, pp. 301–307.
Itävuo, P., Jaatinen, A., Vilkko, M., 2011. Simulation and advanced control of transient
behaviour in gyratory cone crushers. In: Proceedings of the 8th International
Mineral Processing Seminar (Procemin). Santiago, Chile, pp. 63–72.
Janczak, A., 2005. Identification of Nonlinear Systems Using Neural Networks and
Polynomial Models. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.
 P. Itävuo et al. / Minerals Engineering 43–44 (2013) 29–35
Jang, J.-S., 1993. Anfis: adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference systems. IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 23 (3), 665–685.
Johansson, A., 2009. Modelling and simulation of cone crushers. In: Proceedings of
IFACMMM 2009. Viña del Mar, Chile.
Rotter, J., 2001. Guide for the economic design of circular metal silos. Civil
Engineering Series. Spon Press.
Ruuskanen, J., 2006. Influence of Rock Properties on Compressive Crusher
Performance. Ph.D thesis, Tampere University of Technology.
Sbarbaro, D., 2005. Control of crushing circuits with variable speed drives. In:
Proceedings of 16th IFAC World Congress. Praque, Czech Republic.
35
Sbarbaro, D., Barriga, J., Valenzuela, H., Cortes, G., 2005. A multi-input-single-output
smith predictor for feeders control in sag grinding plants. IEEE Transactions on
Control Systems Technology 13 (6), 1069–1075.
Soldinger, M., 2002. Transport velocity of a crushed rock material bed on a screen.
Minerals Engineering 15 (1–2), 7–17.
Viilo, K. (Ed.), 2011. Crushing and Screening Handbook, fifth ed. Metso Minerals.
Whiten, W.J., 1984. Models and control techniques for crushing plants. In: Control
84, Minl. Metall. Process, AIME Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, USA, pp. 217–225.